Forum:Proposition - The Future of the Veto
THIS VOTE IS HEREBY CLOSED WITH AN 8 - 2 'YES' MAJORITY. DUE TO THE NATURE OF THIS PROPOSITION, IT IS EXEMPT FROM VETO AUTHORITY. The Issue The recent introduction of the Voting Standards Act has generation controversy, primarily due to the new veto system in place. Its supporters claim it to be necessary to prevent a tyrannical majority, and prevent harmful, but popular, propositions from taking effect. It's detractors claim that it unjustly places too much power in the hands of the Bureaucrat, and disregards the community's voice. This vote is hereby commenced to decide its fate. The Question Should Part 3, "Veto Authority" and Part 1; Section 6 be revoked from the Voting Standards Act? Yes # While I certainly am for the prevention of a tyrannical majority, and for preventing harmful, but popular, propositions from passing, this does indeed give a disproportionate amount of power to Zero. As ComradeJ said, with the low numbers on the wiki already, it would be rather hard for a two-thirds majority to occur to override the veto. TopsyKretts3 (talk) 05:40, June 10, 2013 (UTC) # We live in a democratic society; and the Veto Authority can, and will turn the CAWiki into an autocracy, or even worse, a Tyranny. 07:10, June 9, 2013 (UTC) # Definitely, I don't want to be in a place where it's tyranny # You essentially announced you had new powers. Never put them to a vote, nor were they the result of a vote. Corruptness at its core. 16:25, June 9, 2013 (UTC) # The Voting Standards Act has too many flaws. I'm sure this act will destroy the wiki, so let's put it to a stop now. ComradeJ (talk) 18:11, June 11, 2013 (UTC) # The Part 3 is essentially tyrannical. If the voice of the community can be overturned by a single bureaucrat with a veto, that is straight up undemocratic. Inc1t3Ful (talk) 22:32, June 11, 2013 (UTC) # When the '''community '''decides something, it should be final and not be able to be overturned by the belief of one. Perhaps more stringent voting requirements should be added. Muddapaka (talk) 20:44, June 12, 2013 (UTC) # As explained here. (> - ^.^ -)> 19:35, June 17, 2013 (UTC) No # I totally disagree I think that it should stay in,if it is new,we should be able to embrace it. # Bureaucrats are a rare species. They are capable of granting and removing certain privileges of any user, as well as having the abilities of an Administrator. Only the most trustworthy of the trustworthy are given this position. These people know what they are doing. Because of this, I see no harm in allowing Bureaucrats to have the ability of vetoing a proposition. 21:01, June 10, 2013 (UTC) Comments * I don't think it's fair that something can get canceled easily by 1 person after everyone else said yes. I also don't like this act, because it doesn't let me vote :( . Nexxy (talk) 05:02, June 17, 2013 (UTC) * @ComradeJ: You do know this isn't to overturn all of the act, just the veto power, right? 00:26, June 12, 2013 (UTC) **Is there a way to repeal the entire act? ComradeJ (talk) 20:08, June 17, 2013 (UTC) * Keep in mind as well, if this passes, EpaX will be demoted, as that was what the previous vote decided. If Zero does not comply, he is forcibly going against rules. 21:09, June 12, 2013 (UTC) **Technically that was done before the VSA was enacted. TopsyKretts3 (talk) 19:54, June 14, 2013 (UTC) ***Doesn't exclude him from it. The reason for this veto is BECAUSE he used it. Thus, he has no right to use it unless this vote fails. 20:15, June 14, 2013 (UTC) * Since when did the act passed in the first place? I don't recall the community voting and agreeing for the act to take place. ComradeJ (talk) 20:08, June 17, 2013 (UTC) **It was created by administrative action in response the complaints and malfeasance in recent propositions. In addition, not much of it is new, most of it is just writing down what was already established as proper voting and proposition practice. TopsyKretts3 (talk) 20:12, June 17, 2013 (UTC)